KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

42. Before the CIT-A , the assessee objected to the additions of RS.80,27,500/- being expenses u/s 14A to the computation of Book Profits for the purposes of S.115JB of the Act and challenged the action of AO in invoking Rule 8D to make disallowance u/s 14A of the Act which has been disputed by the appellant and submitted

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEENLOK ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

42,70,464/- made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

disallowance of Rs. 105,54,53,000/- is deleted. " 40. On considering the above submissions, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, observing as follows: “7. I have carefully considered the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, submissions of the appellant and the order of my learned predecessor i.e. Commissioner of Income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

42,300/- under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and negative Book Profit of Rs.241,53,84,240/- under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the said return, dividend income of Rs.4,31,280/- received during the year under consideration was claimed to be exempt by the assessee-company. No disallowance

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

42 ITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 & 1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019 AYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15 M/s. Coal India Ltd. disallowance u/s 14A of the Act on account of dividend received could not be offset on account of receipt of Apex Charges. Further, there is merit in the argument that only the income from dividend yielding investment

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 40A(i). On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the same reasons as given by the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. Nos. 1671/KOL./2008 & 1024/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 & I.T.A. Nos. 1699/KOL/2008 & 973/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 28 of 34 39. We have heard the arguments

RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

42 of 1956) and which fulfils such co of 1956) and which fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed and notified by nditions as may be prescribed and notified by the Central Government for this purpose;' the Central Government for this purpose;' Section 43(5) of the Act provides that a transaction in which a contract for the Section

A.C.I.T CIR - 35,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KISHAN GOPAL MOHTA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance of Rs.92,04,274/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 to Rs.11,42

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

42,632/- worked out by the assessee. The profit of the eligible business of long-term finance accordingly was re-computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.678,96,54,842/- and the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) was restricted by him to Rs.135,79,30,968/- thereby making a disallowance

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194(C) and disallowed of Rs. 87,388/- on account of Studio Hire Charges and as discussed above, the CIT-A dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for non-appearance. 6. Before us, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee submitted through reply on 05-12-2008 during the assessment proceedings stating that he did not pay more than